DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 7 “The rejection contains an error however, in that the elastomeric dam 482 of Figure 20 does not fill the gap between the edges of the ground plane 204. Rather, just a small portion of the top of the elastomeric dam 482 is in the gap between the ground planes 204 and the bulk of the gap is filled by the gasket 484 that corresponds to the bridge portion. Once again, claim 1 requires that the non-conducting filling compound that at least fills the gaps, and here the elastomeric dam 482 is barely within the gap at all.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not limit what portion of the gaps are filled by the non-conducting filling compound.
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the elastomeric dam of Swernofsky to fill the (remaining) gap between the ground plane where the conductive bridge does not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swernofsky et al. (US 11870142 B2), herein referred to as Swernofsky.
Regarding claim 1, Swernofsky discloses an array antenna (100) comprising at least two subarray antennas (102a-d), each subarray antenna comprising at least one antenna element (118p-s), an electrically conducting top ground plane (examiner will refer to individual subarray ground plane as 102x, if needed, for simplicity as they are not numerated, see column 12, lines 9-13), surrounding the elements and edges, where each subarray antenna (102a-d) is mounted adjacent (see fig. 1) at least one other subarray antenna (102a-d) such that at least one pair of adjacent subarray antennas is formed, where, for each subarray antenna, at least one edge is facing an edge of an adjacent subarray antenna (see fig. 1) where a corresponding gap (112a-d) is formed between edges facing each other, wherein the array antenna comprises a non-conducting filling compound that at least fills the gaps (482, col. 24, lines 16-38), wherein the array antenna comprises a plurality of electrically conducting bridge parts (484, col. 24, lines 16-38), where the bridge parts are over and supported by the non-conducting filling compound in the gaps (col. 24, lines 16-38), and attached to, and electrically connecting, the top ground planes of each pair of adjacent subarray antennas, the bridge parts crossing the gaps (column 14, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 2, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein the bridge parts are in the form of electrically conducting strips (542).
Regarding claim 3, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein the bridge parts are in the form of electrically conducting strips that are made completely in metal (gold or copper, 542).
Regarding claim 4, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein each bridge part is attached to a top ground plane by means of solder (col. 20, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 5, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein each subarray antenna (102a-d) is formed in a multilayer structure (see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein each subarray antenna (102a-d) is connected to a main printed circuit board, PCB, by means of connection members (explicit based upon col. 8 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 11, Swernofsky discloses a method (Column 3, line 4) for assembling an array antenna (100) , where the method comprises: providing at least two subarray antennas (102a and b), each subarray antenna comprising at least one antenna element (118p-s), an electrically conducting top ground plane(examiner will refer to individual subarray ground plane as 102x, if needed, for simplicity as they are not numerated, see column 12, lines 9-13) surrounding the antenna elements and edges; mounting at least one row of subarray antennas by mounting subarray antennas pair-wise adjacent to each other along a first extension (E1) (direction between 102a and 102b, see fig. 1), where, for each subarray antenna, at least one edge is facing an edge of an adjacent subarray antenna (see fig. 1), where a corresponding gap (112) is formed along edges facing each other, wherein the array antenna comprises a non-conducting filling compound that at least fills the gaps (484, col. 24, lines 16-38); attaching a plurality of electrically conducting bridge parts (482 col. 24, lines 16-38) to the adjacent top ground planes such that each gap between adjacent top ground planes is crossed and these top ground planes are electrically connected to each other (column 14, lines 37-50), and wherein the bridge parts are over and supported by the non-conducting filling compound in the gaps (col. 24, lines 16-38).
Regarding claim 12, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein the mounting comprises: forming a plurality of rows of subarray antennas, the rows being separated along a second extension (E2) that is perpendicular to the first extension (E1) (see fig. 1, from 102a-b to 102c-d is perpendicular to 102a-b, or 102c-d individually).
Regarding claim 13, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Swernofsky also discloses further comprising forming each subarray antenna in a multi-layer structure (see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 17, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Swernofsky also discloses wherein the method comprises connecting each subarray antenna (102a-d) to a main printed circuit board, PCB, using connection members (explicit based upon col. 8 lines 5-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swernofsky and further in view of Che et al. (US 20220209411 A1), herein referred to as Che.
Regarding claim 6, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 5.
Swernofsky does not disclose wherein each multi-layer structure comprises at least two dielectric layers and at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding ground plane.
However, Che discloses an antenna system wherein each multi-layer structure (fig. 11b) comprises at least two dielectric layers (para. 0087)) and at least one intermediate ground plane (12) that is electrically connected (ground vias 8) to a corresponding ground plane (other 12 as pointed out in fig. 11b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Swernofsky wherein each multi-layer structure comprises at least two dielectric layers and at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding ground plane, as taught by Che, to provide high isolation and impedance matching (paras. 0087, 0090).
Regarding claim 7, Swernofsky and Che render obvious all limitations of base claim 6.
Swernofsky does not disclose wherein at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding top ground plane by means of corresponding via connections.
However, as discussed in claim 6, Che does teach wherein at least one intermediate ground plane (12) that is electrically connected (vias 8) to a corresponding top ground plane (other 12) by means of corresponding via connections (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Swernofsky wherein at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding top ground plane by means of corresponding via connections, as taught by Che, for impedance matching (para. 0090).
Regarding claim 8, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 5.
Swernofsky does not disclose the at least one dielectric layer, and therefore wherein at least one dielectric layer comprises electronic circuitry.
However, Che does disclose the at least one dielectric layer (para. 0087) and wherein at least one dielectric layer comprises electronic circuitry (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Swernofsky wherein the at least one dielectric layer, and therefore wherein at least one dielectric layer comprises electronic circuitry, as taught by Che, in order to operate the antenna (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 14, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 13.
Swernofsky does not disclose wherein each multi-layer structure comprises at least two dielectric layers and at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding ground plane.
However, Che discloses an antenna system wherein each multi-layer structure (fig. 11b) comprises at least two dielectric layers (para. 0087)) and at least one intermediate ground plane (12) that is electrically connected (ground vias 8) to a corresponding ground plane (other 12 as pointed out in fig. 11b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the method of Swernofsky wherein each multi-layer structure comprises at least two dielectric layers and at least one intermediate ground plane that is electrically connected to a corresponding ground plane, as taught by Che, to provide high isolation and impedance matching (paras. 0087, 0090).
Regarding claim 15, Swernofsky and Che render obvious all limitations of base claim 14.
Swernofsky does not disclose electrically connecting at least one intermediate ground plane to a corresponding top ground plane using corresponding via connections.
However, as discussed in claim 14, Che does teach electrically connecting (vias 8) at least one intermediate ground plane (12) to a corresponding top ground plane (other 12using corresponding via connections (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Swernofsky electrically connecting at least one intermediate ground plane to a corresponding top ground plane using corresponding via connections, as taught by Che, for impedance matching (para. 0090).
Regarding claim 16, Swernofsky anticipates all limitations of base claim 13.
Swernofsky does not disclose wherein the method comprises providing electronic circuitry to at least one dielectric layer.
However, Che does disclose the at least one dielectric layer (para. 0087) and wherein at least one dielectric layer comprises electronic circuitry (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the method of Swernofsky wherein the method comprises providing electronic circuitry to at least one dielectric layer, as taught by Che, in order to operate the antenna (para. 0058).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights